1 / 21

Achieving Interoperability between QVTO and ATL for Enhanced Model Transformation

This document presents an overview of the efforts to enable interoperability between QVTO (QVT Operational) and ATL (Atlas Transformation Language). It outlines the motivations for improving tool interoperability, the architectural frameworks of ATL, and the key goals of implementing QVTO transformations within the ATL ecosystem. Additionally, it explores the QVTO standard, the approach used to compile and run QVTO transformations in ATL, and the results obtained. The findings indicate that while most QVTO constructs are successfully implemented, future work is needed to handle exceptions and enhance granularity in transformations.

kasie
Télécharger la présentation

Achieving Interoperability between QVTO and ATL for Enhanced Model Transformation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Achieving QVTO & ATL Interoperability naam Alfons Laarman

  2. Overview • Motivation • Goals • ATL Architecture • QVT Standard • Approach • QVTO to ATLVM “Compiler” • Results • Conclusions • References

  3. Motivation • Different model transformation languages: QVT, ATL, etc • Each has its own strengths and downsides (these include the properties of the provided tools) • Tool interoperability would allow a developer to use his/her language of preference

  4. Source: Jouault & Kurtev 2006

  5. Goals • Develop, compile and run QVTO transformations in the ATL toolset • Aim at complete QVTO support • Proof hypothesis of Jouault & Kurtev • Proof ATL tools to be QVT(O) conformant

  6. ATL Architecture • ATL has a virtual machine architecture The ATL Wiki, William Piers

  7. ATL Architecture (2) • The ATL virtual machine is: • Object-oriented • Stack-based • Model manipulation language context QVT!Object def : container() { load self; call ‘J.refImmediateComposite() : J‘; }

  8. QVT Standard • QVT is an OMG standard for model transformations defining 3 languages and 3 conformance levels

  9. QVT Operational • Completely imperative mappings • Trace sensitive mapping execution • Mapping combination: inheritance, merging and disjunction • Transformation handling

  10. EntryOperation Imperative rule call transformation Uml2Rdb(in srcModel:UML,out destModel:RDBMS); main() { srcModel.objects()[Class]->map class2table(); } mapping Class::class2table () : Table when {self.kind='persistent';} { init { self.leafAttributes := self.attribute->map attr2LeafAttrs(); } name := 't_' + self.name; column := self.leafAttributes->map leafAttr2OrdinaryColumn(""); key := object Key { name := 'k_'+ self.name; column := result.column[kind='primary']; }; } OO Trace sensitive Multiple parameters: context, result and in/out/inout inherit disjunct merge Guard Initiation section Implicit target element creation Population section (end section)

  11. Approach • Reuse SmartQVT Front-end • Express QVTO semantics on the ATLVM using ACG

  12. QVTO 2 ATLVM

  13. QVTO 2 ATLVM

  14. Other language constructs • ImperativeCallExp • HelperOperation, ConstructorOperation and EntryOperation • ResolveExp • TransformationCallExp, etc

  15. Exception support

  16. For/Break/Continue push collection iterate element push element <process> <break/continue> <process> enditerate

  17. Results QVTO completely implemented except for transformation handling constructs Demonstrated by running examples: • UML22RDBMS (extended) • UML2Ecore • Ecore2EMOF • Industrial case from Obeo (concerning automated porting to Java)

  18. Conclusions • ATL tools are flexible and interoperability is easy to create (at least for an imperative lang.). Efforts have been made for QVTR • The rule level semantics of QVT can be handled directly by ATL. Transformation level semantics not, but can be handled outside by (generated) scripts • Interoperability at lower granularity is possible: super imposition and blackbox operations (future work) • Exceptions and imperative operations like break are hard to express on ATLVM • ATL tools can now be considered QVT(O) conformant

  19. References • ATL Industrialization, www.atlpro.org • QVT  ATL On the architectural alignment of ATL and QVT Fréderíc Jouault & Ivan Kurtev. 2006 • QVTR to ATLVM. http://eclipse.org/m2m, Quentin Glineur • QVTR to QVTO: Translation of QVT Relations into QVT Operational Mappings Raphael Romeikat, Stephan Roser, Pascal Müllender, Bernhard Bauer. 2009

More Related